Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Ahh, now you all understand what I meant when I said YouTube is a moat, not a revenue generator. By putting YouTube results into Google’s main engine Google ensures it will have better searches than Yahoo and Microsoft (who were, truth be told, getting damn close to matching Google’s quality). And it does it in a way that Yahoo and Microsoft will not be willing to match. Seriously, can you see an executive at Microsoft advocating putting YouTube videos into Microsoft’s search results? I can’t. That’d be the equivilent of sending traffic to a competitor. It’d be what I advocate at this point, but that explains why I am a stupid blogger and not some multi-millionaire executive.

Anyway, Google just distanced themselves from Yahoo and Microsoft. And they just provided a way to monetize YouTube videos.

I love Google’s strategy. It continues to mess with Microsoft’s strategy. Microsoft still treats each team as something that must make money. Google doesn’t do that. They didn’t care one bit that YouTube didn’t have any revenues. They knew that there’s other ways to make money off of YouTube than to force YouTube to monetize on its own.

Truth be told even I didn’t quite understand just what an impact that the YouTube purchase would have. It’s all very clear now. It also is even more worth putting up with billions of dollars of lawsuits.

If I were at Microsoft now I don’t know what I’d be advocating. Ray Ozzie really has his work cut out for him.

Google just put Microsoft’s Internet strategy in a box. It also explains why Microsoft has put so much effort into Silverlight lately (they need that to build a platform to get out of the box) and, might even explain why the lawyers are sabre rattling about open source. The execs at Microsoft don’t like being put into boxes. That isn’t a place they’ve ever been before.

If Google were playing chess I think they just said “check.”

And you wonder why the rest of the industry is talking about FOG (Fear of Google)? Exactly.

Related

Author: Robert Scoble

Scoble gives you a front-row seat on the future. Especially on platforms that use the fourth user interface, spatial computing, like virtual reality or mixed reality that will come soon thanks to his own front-row seat as entrepreneur in residence at UploadVR.com and his past experience as futurist at Rackspace.
Best place to find Scoble? On his Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/scobletechnology/
View all posts by Robert Scoble

I’m really confounded as to why you would claim this. There are plenty of teams at MS that don’t have revenue and are not expected to be revenue generators, but have strategic purpose.
What is the revenue model for the Avalon team? WWF? VS Express editions? Countless others…

I’m really confounded as to why you would claim this. There are plenty of teams at MS that don’t have revenue and are not expected to be revenue generators, but have strategic purpose.
What is the revenue model for the Avalon team? WWF? VS Express editions? Countless others…

The most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you, Scoble, and that’s saying a lot. Good grief, when you worked at Microsoft, did you actually have a clue as to what was going on there? I know that your technical knowledge is next to zero, but even you could see there are plenty of teams at MS that aren’t “must make money”. Hell, look at Microsoft Research itself, which you were praising awhile ago.

The most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you, Scoble, and that’s saying a lot. Good grief, when you worked at Microsoft, did you actually have a clue as to what was going on there? I know that your technical knowledge is next to zero, but even you could see there are plenty of teams at MS that aren’t “must make money”. Hell, look at Microsoft Research itself, which you were praising awhile ago.

BTW, I thought everyone *knew* that Google was going to merge search results from its own sites with results from the the general web. Seems that Scoble was the only one clueless as to this. And this, despite Scoble spending so much time at Google’s office brown-nosing them. After all that, you didn’t get a clue as to what they were actually doing? Well, you didn’t have a clue what Microsoft did when you actually worked there (evidenced by your “all teams must make money” malarky), so it’s not a surprise.

BTW, Microsoft and Yahoo already do include YouTube in their search results. Do a search on ‘obama letterman’ (not quoted together) and see the first result that comes up using either search engine.

BTW, I thought everyone *knew* that Google was going to merge search results from its own sites with results from the the general web. Seems that Scoble was the only one clueless as to this. And this, despite Scoble spending so much time at Google’s office brown-nosing them. After all that, you didn’t get a clue as to what they were actually doing? Well, you didn’t have a clue what Microsoft did when you actually worked there (evidenced by your “all teams must make money” malarky), so it’s not a surprise.

BTW, Microsoft and Yahoo already do include YouTube in their search results. Do a search on ‘obama letterman’ (not quoted together) and see the first result that comes up using either search engine.

I’m confused as to why you think Silverlight is Microsoft trying to get out of a box? It seems completely anti to that goal; producing a new closed and proprietary platform does nothing at all for their ability to interoperate with other web applications, be they partnerships or acquisitions.

I’m confused as to why you think Silverlight is Microsoft trying to get out of a box? It seems completely anti to that goal; producing a new closed and proprietary platform does nothing at all for their ability to interoperate with other web applications, be they partnerships or acquisitions.

How does the MS interal tech support group make money? How does the C9 group that you were a part of make money? What other groups inside MS are supposed to be making money according to Robert that aren’t?
And is this whole Universal search a new idea? Everyone knew that it would come when news.google.com or images.google.com or video.google.com or whatever.google.com started that one day from the main search you would be able to search everything.

How does the MS interal tech support group make money? How does the C9 group that you were a part of make money? What other groups inside MS are supposed to be making money according to Robert that aren’t?
And is this whole Universal search a new idea? Everyone knew that it would come when news.google.com or images.google.com or video.google.com or whatever.google.com started that one day from the main search you would be able to search everything.

>I know that your technical knowledge is next to zero, but even you could see there are plenty of teams at MS that aren’t “must make money”.

Implicit in that is “product teams.” Research and Support teams aren’t included in that. Does Research ship completed products or services for you to use? Not really (they do ship some things, but really they are more proof of concepts than things that have totally been productized and certainly you don’t see Research labs kinds of things on Live.com yet for the most part). Of course there are exceptions, but the exceptions are far and few between where at Google they are almost everywhere (out of all of Google’s products how many are making money? Not many).

Regarding everyone knowing that YouTube would be integrated into search. Hmmm, you must be reading different reports than I am (and I read a lot of blogs and journalists’ reports, so that’s saying a lot). Most people couldn’t believe that YouTube was worth the price. I don’t remember anyone saying that the price was worth it because they would integrate YouTube videos into the main search, which would keep Microsoft and Yahoo’s quality from matching Google’s.

>I know that your technical knowledge is next to zero, but even you could see there are plenty of teams at MS that aren’t “must make money”.

Implicit in that is “product teams.” Research and Support teams aren’t included in that. Does Research ship completed products or services for you to use? Not really (they do ship some things, but really they are more proof of concepts than things that have totally been productized and certainly you don’t see Research labs kinds of things on Live.com yet for the most part). Of course there are exceptions, but the exceptions are far and few between where at Google they are almost everywhere (out of all of Google’s products how many are making money? Not many).

Regarding everyone knowing that YouTube would be integrated into search. Hmmm, you must be reading different reports than I am (and I read a lot of blogs and journalists’ reports, so that’s saying a lot). Most people couldn’t believe that YouTube was worth the price. I don’t remember anyone saying that the price was worth it because they would integrate YouTube videos into the main search, which would keep Microsoft and Yahoo’s quality from matching Google’s.

Kermit: “The most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you, Scoble, and that’s saying a lot. Good grief, when you worked at Microsoft, did you actually have a clue as to what was going on there? I know that your technical knowledge is next to zero, but even you could see there are plenty of teams at MS that aren’t “must make money”. Hell, look at Microsoft Research itself, which you were praising awhile ago.”

Sheesh. Time to turn on moderation, or maybe require real email addresses. It is a great compliment to your relevance that all these little voices keep whining about you.

As a former MS drone, I understood exactly what you meant — they didn’t require that the cafeterias make money, or the landscaping crew, or the HR department. But if your BG wasn’t contributing, you got hind teat and no respect. And you usually got a new VP pretty quickly.

Kermit: “The most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you, Scoble, and that’s saying a lot. Good grief, when you worked at Microsoft, did you actually have a clue as to what was going on there? I know that your technical knowledge is next to zero, but even you could see there are plenty of teams at MS that aren’t “must make money”. Hell, look at Microsoft Research itself, which you were praising awhile ago.”

Sheesh. Time to turn on moderation, or maybe require real email addresses. It is a great compliment to your relevance that all these little voices keep whining about you.

As a former MS drone, I understood exactly what you meant — they didn’t require that the cafeterias make money, or the landscaping crew, or the HR department. But if your BG wasn’t contributing, you got hind teat and no respect. And you usually got a new VP pretty quickly.

XBox and Zune don’t make money. Arguably the biggest (fixable) problem right now at MSFT is that too many teams are allowed to lose money. As long as cross-subsidization of money-losing products is allowed, the teams that produce them don’t have the same set of incentives that their competitors do to produce a great product.

If the products were forced to stand on their own, those that could be improved to the point at which they could compete well in the marketplace would be, and those that were unredeemable failures would be dropped. Both outcomes would be good.

Now, there may be some case to be made for cross-subsidization of products with zero marginal cost (e.g., giving away software like WMP or Adobe Reader, or your YouTube example). But having teams that build hardware (XBox, Zune, etc.) lose money year after year doesn’t make any business sense at all – it’s just a sign of a bloated, lazy company that is desperately trying to maintain share in too many markets.

XBox and Zune don’t make money. Arguably the biggest (fixable) problem right now at MSFT is that too many teams are allowed to lose money. As long as cross-subsidization of money-losing products is allowed, the teams that produce them don’t have the same set of incentives that their competitors do to produce a great product.

If the products were forced to stand on their own, those that could be improved to the point at which they could compete well in the marketplace would be, and those that were unredeemable failures would be dropped. Both outcomes would be good.

Now, there may be some case to be made for cross-subsidization of products with zero marginal cost (e.g., giving away software like WMP or Adobe Reader, or your YouTube example). But having teams that build hardware (XBox, Zune, etc.) lose money year after year doesn’t make any business sense at all – it’s just a sign of a bloated, lazy company that is desperately trying to maintain share in too many markets.

That’s a funny opinion, Robert. Or is it my opinion that’s odd? When I read that Google was going to incorporate videos on their search page my first thought was “Crap, looks like I won’t be using Google any more.”

I don’t give flying you know what about videos or YouTube and only know of one, teenaged, person that does.

If videos start popping up in my Google search results, even just as text links adding to the noise, it’ll be like the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and drive me from using Google any more.

That’s a funny opinion, Robert. Or is it my opinion that’s odd? When I read that Google was going to incorporate videos on their search page my first thought was “Crap, looks like I won’t be using Google any more.”

I don’t give flying you know what about videos or YouTube and only know of one, teenaged, person that does.

If videos start popping up in my Google search results, even just as text links adding to the noise, it’ll be like the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and drive me from using Google any more.

“Seriously, can you see an executive at Microsoft advocating putting YouTube videos into Microsoft’s search results? I can’t. That’d be the equivilent of sending traffic to a competitor.”

..

I don’t see why they wouldn’t. The #2 result for “search engine” at Yahoo! is Google. The #2 and #3 results at Live.com for “search engine” is Google.

If your goal is to index information (and that should be a major part of any major search engine’s goal), then you can’t shy away from indexing all information just because a competitor creates it. Google isn’t shy about indexing Yahoo content (#1 result for “stocks” is Y! Finance, #2 result for “sports” is Y! Sports, etc.), why should Microsoft or Yahoo! be shy about indexing YouTube?

If they’re serious about video search (and they probably should be), the answer is: they won’t be shy.

“Seriously, can you see an executive at Microsoft advocating putting YouTube videos into Microsoft’s search results? I can’t. That’d be the equivilent of sending traffic to a competitor.”

..

I don’t see why they wouldn’t. The #2 result for “search engine” at Yahoo! is Google. The #2 and #3 results at Live.com for “search engine” is Google.

If your goal is to index information (and that should be a major part of any major search engine’s goal), then you can’t shy away from indexing all information just because a competitor creates it. Google isn’t shy about indexing Yahoo content (#1 result for “stocks” is Y! Finance, #2 result for “sports” is Y! Sports, etc.), why should Microsoft or Yahoo! be shy about indexing YouTube?

If they’re serious about video search (and they probably should be), the answer is: they won’t be shy.

Actually, if I were Yahoo or Microsoft, I will index YouTube video if I have the technology. If people are going to rival’s side for the video anyway, I would rather they come to my site first. This way I am in the loop and can do something remedy this bad(???) situation.

Actually, if I were Yahoo or Microsoft, I will index YouTube video if I have the technology. If people are going to rival’s side for the video anyway, I would rather they come to my site first. This way I am in the loop and can do something remedy this bad(???) situation.

Or maybe Google knows something about us that we don’t know. I’m sure they know a lot about me, my weaknesses, what links I click and what stuff I buy. And they saw something in Youtube that you and I cannot.

Or maybe Google knows something about us that we don’t know. I’m sure they know a lot about me, my weaknesses, what links I click and what stuff I buy. And they saw something in Youtube that you and I cannot.

I think the box they are in is that they are still making money on their monopoly products, Windows and Office, both of which may have many years to go in making money.

BUT, to interest Wall Street you have to show you have something new and exciting that could explode onto the market every few years. Microsoft has a dismal track record in this regard.

What are the last three headlines concerning Microsoft/: Head lawyer threatens to sue everyone using Open Source; Head Open Source “guru” says much Open Source was stolen from MS; Bill Gates says the future computer will be the cell phone.

While all of these positions are totally idiotic. Gates is a least PRETENDING to be forward thinking (and I guess that is his job now) by looking for a new revenue stream that is not dependant (at least necessarily so) on the existing monopoly.

Seems to me like whoever is supposed to be actually running the company (and that would still be Ballmer wouldn’t it?) is letting the company run totally out of control.

Reminds me of the old joke (which I’ll mess up here I’m sure): “Granddad died peacefully in his sleep. The passengers in his car died screaming their heads off as he drove them off the cliff.”

I think the box they are in is that they are still making money on their monopoly products, Windows and Office, both of which may have many years to go in making money.

BUT, to interest Wall Street you have to show you have something new and exciting that could explode onto the market every few years. Microsoft has a dismal track record in this regard.

What are the last three headlines concerning Microsoft/: Head lawyer threatens to sue everyone using Open Source; Head Open Source “guru” says much Open Source was stolen from MS; Bill Gates says the future computer will be the cell phone.

While all of these positions are totally idiotic. Gates is a least PRETENDING to be forward thinking (and I guess that is his job now) by looking for a new revenue stream that is not dependant (at least necessarily so) on the existing monopoly.

Seems to me like whoever is supposed to be actually running the company (and that would still be Ballmer wouldn’t it?) is letting the company run totally out of control.

Reminds me of the old joke (which I’ll mess up here I’m sure): “Granddad died peacefully in his sleep. The passengers in his car died screaming their heads off as he drove them off the cliff.”

“Regarding everyone knowing that YouTube would be integrated into search. Hmmm, you must be reading different reports than I am (and I read a lot of blogs and journalists’ reports, so that’s saying a lot)”

@Scoble, you might have missed Wired’s Interview with Google’s CEO.

Here’s an excerpt that talks about search monetization with YouTube:

Wired: You thought there was a good chance of litigation when you bought YouTube. The deal set aside $200 million to cover the cost of lawsuits. Why did you make the acquisition if you anticipated so much hassle?

Schmidt: Because we think it’s fantastic. I mean, we really do think that the YouTube phenomenon is sustainable for many, many years. And the argument is simple: People are using videoclips everywhere. They’re sharing them. They’re building communities around them. YouTube’s traffic continues to grow rapidly. Video is something that we think is going to be embedded everywhere. And it makes sense, from Google’s perspective, to be the operator of the largest site that contains all that video.
Obviously, we would like to include licensed, copyrighted content — legally — and then make money on it. But YouTube itself can pay off — and this is where the critics get it wrong — in simple searches. Because, remember, when you go to YouTube, you do a search. When you go to Google, you do a search. As we integrate those searches, which we’re working on, it will drive a lot of traffic to both places. So the trick, overall, is generating more searches, more uses of Google.

Wired: Which generates more pageviews, which generates more ad revenue.

“Regarding everyone knowing that YouTube would be integrated into search. Hmmm, you must be reading different reports than I am (and I read a lot of blogs and journalists’ reports, so that’s saying a lot)”

@Scoble, you might have missed Wired’s Interview with Google’s CEO.

Here’s an excerpt that talks about search monetization with YouTube:

Wired: You thought there was a good chance of litigation when you bought YouTube. The deal set aside $200 million to cover the cost of lawsuits. Why did you make the acquisition if you anticipated so much hassle?

Schmidt: Because we think it’s fantastic. I mean, we really do think that the YouTube phenomenon is sustainable for many, many years. And the argument is simple: People are using videoclips everywhere. They’re sharing them. They’re building communities around them. YouTube’s traffic continues to grow rapidly. Video is something that we think is going to be embedded everywhere. And it makes sense, from Google’s perspective, to be the operator of the largest site that contains all that video.
Obviously, we would like to include licensed, copyrighted content — legally — and then make money on it. But YouTube itself can pay off — and this is where the critics get it wrong — in simple searches. Because, remember, when you go to YouTube, you do a search. When you go to Google, you do a search. As we integrate those searches, which we’re working on, it will drive a lot of traffic to both places. So the trick, overall, is generating more searches, more uses of Google.

Wired: Which generates more pageviews, which generates more ad revenue.

All this is pretty superfluous really, I mean, the internet is still only the internet at the end of the day. I’m sure most people have other uses for their computers than searching Google, Microsoft or whoever, I know I do. Besides, I think it’s high time that Microsoft et al stop trying to assume ownership of the internet, it’s rediculous. I also agree with Neal, who really cares if YouTube is returned in Google search results, I do hope Google give us the option to turn that ‘feature’ off.

All this is pretty superfluous really, I mean, the internet is still only the internet at the end of the day. I’m sure most people have other uses for their computers than searching Google, Microsoft or whoever, I know I do. Besides, I think it’s high time that Microsoft et al stop trying to assume ownership of the internet, it’s rediculous. I also agree with Neal, who really cares if YouTube is returned in Google search results, I do hope Google give us the option to turn that ‘feature’ off.

Google’s search engine offers a much greater market than MSN and Yahoo, with or without youtube.

Its wins on simplicity.

When you search for something, 99% of the ppl do not need other rubbish infos like news, weather, games, music etc. They just need clear and smart results. Even if they wanted to be entertained, many knows of websites specializing in those services.

That is why no matter how much more features Yahoo and MSN add, or how their results matches those of Google,s they still can’t beat the giant

Google’s search engine offers a much greater market than MSN and Yahoo, with or without youtube.

Its wins on simplicity.

When you search for something, 99% of the ppl do not need other rubbish infos like news, weather, games, music etc. They just need clear and smart results. Even if they wanted to be entertained, many knows of websites specializing in those services.

That is why no matter how much more features Yahoo and MSN add, or how their results matches those of Google,s they still can’t beat the giant

The inevitable backlash against Google wont be long, and with Firefox usage on the rise I think that will mean more people blocking out adverts, which does render Google’s whole revenue platform slightly useless.
As for MS always needing to make money, tell that the the guys who were on the XBox1 team!

The inevitable backlash against Google wont be long, and with Firefox usage on the rise I think that will mean more people blocking out adverts, which does render Google’s whole revenue platform slightly useless.
As for MS always needing to make money, tell that the the guys who were on the XBox1 team!

“But, to interest Wall Street you have to show you have something new and exciting that could explode onto the market every few years.”

This is true – and since Wall Street has been worried that Google is a one-trick pony, slightly improving search/ad by integrating another big site into their results may not be the new and exciting source of revenue that Wall Street might have imagined possible when YouTube was acquired.

“But, to interest Wall Street you have to show you have something new and exciting that could explode onto the market every few years.”

This is true – and since Wall Street has been worried that Google is a one-trick pony, slightly improving search/ad by integrating another big site into their results may not be the new and exciting source of revenue that Wall Street might have imagined possible when YouTube was acquired.

I am in two minds about the merging of search ‘streams’ into one super search. My first thought was that I do not want irrelevant videos/images/etc interwoven with the results that I want. Why? because I am sceptical of the search engine being able to second guess what I want from a particular set of keywords. The second thing I thought was, if it works then it will save me time from having to swap between various streams thus saving me time + money.

But I cannot question that it is a stroke of genius (and forsite) and anyone saying ‘it was obvious’ are the same who say ‘I could have thought of that’.

My own real concern is that Google is not showing signs of improving relevancy calculation, because of ‘over linking’ search results are becoming twisted, and although Google continue make the ‘good fight’ I await to see what the next generation of technology is that improves the results themselves. But for the minute Google are still way out in the lead, so who can catch up?

I am in two minds about the merging of search ‘streams’ into one super search. My first thought was that I do not want irrelevant videos/images/etc interwoven with the results that I want. Why? because I am sceptical of the search engine being able to second guess what I want from a particular set of keywords. The second thing I thought was, if it works then it will save me time from having to swap between various streams thus saving me time + money.

But I cannot question that it is a stroke of genius (and forsite) and anyone saying ‘it was obvious’ are the same who say ‘I could have thought of that’.

My own real concern is that Google is not showing signs of improving relevancy calculation, because of ‘over linking’ search results are becoming twisted, and although Google continue make the ‘good fight’ I await to see what the next generation of technology is that improves the results themselves. But for the minute Google are still way out in the lead, so who can catch up?

monetize |ˌmʌnɪtʌɪz| verb [ trans. ] convert into or express in the form of currency. • [usu. as adj. ] ( monetized) adapt (a society) to the use of money : a fully monetized society. DERIVATIVES monetization |-ˌzeɪʃ(ə)n| noun ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from French monétiser, from Latin moneta ‘money.’

monetize |ˌmʌnɪtʌɪz| verb [ trans. ] convert into or express in the form of currency. • [usu. as adj. ] ( monetized) adapt (a society) to the use of money : a fully monetized society. DERIVATIVES monetization |-ˌzeɪʃ(ə)n| noun ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from French monétiser, from Latin moneta ‘money.’

I’m not as clever as half the commentators on here, but isn’t this whole Google/You Tube thing a bit like describing a wank as a “hot session, with someone who’s really into me, and will do ANYTHING I want” with the guys next day at work?

I’m not as clever as half the commentators on here, but isn’t this whole Google/You Tube thing a bit like describing a wank as a “hot session, with someone who’s really into me, and will do ANYTHING I want” with the guys next day at work?

You mean “monetize” is a real word? I thought I was reasonably literate, but I’ve never heard of it. If people want to communicate with the world via the Internet, then surely it would be sensible for them to use English that most people will understand? This is especially true when you consider that the vast majority of web articles are written in English, but a large number of the readers do NOT have English as their first language. They should not be excluded from debate and participation by the use of jargon, slang and awful Americanisations.

You mean “monetize” is a real word? I thought I was reasonably literate, but I’ve never heard of it. If people want to communicate with the world via the Internet, then surely it would be sensible for them to use English that most people will understand? This is especially true when you consider that the vast majority of web articles are written in English, but a large number of the readers do NOT have English as their first language. They should not be excluded from debate and participation by the use of jargon, slang and awful Americanisations.

Well, I do like Google’s purchase of Youtube, I don’t think that they will make any money from it.As a casual user of Yourtube, I like some of the user created content, but the current format of Youtube’s video stream is pretty low quality. I don’t think that Google’s attempt to fully index Youtube’s content will reveal anything other than the vast majority of it’s user’s content is nothing more than Copyright theft. I think that most of the Copyrighted content on Youtube is not fair use, it’s just people to lazy to record a show, or to cheap to buy something they want to watch. We It comes to improving the long term prospects of the web, I’ll take Microsoft’s, or Apple’s money making model over the other models.

Well, I do like Google’s purchase of Youtube, I don’t think that they will make any money from it.As a casual user of Yourtube, I like some of the user created content, but the current format of Youtube’s video stream is pretty low quality. I don’t think that Google’s attempt to fully index Youtube’s content will reveal anything other than the vast majority of it’s user’s content is nothing more than Copyright theft. I think that most of the Copyrighted content on Youtube is not fair use, it’s just people to lazy to record a show, or to cheap to buy something they want to watch. We It comes to improving the long term prospects of the web, I’ll take Microsoft’s, or Apple’s money making model over the other models.

That’s what Google does with ALL of its ‘extra’ services – YouTube, Gmail, Google Apps. None of these actually make any money, they are all aimed at increasing loyalty to the Google ‘brand’ and increasing/maintaining Google’s market share in its main search business.

That’s what Google does with ALL of its ‘extra’ services – YouTube, Gmail, Google Apps. None of these actually make any money, they are all aimed at increasing loyalty to the Google ‘brand’ and increasing/maintaining Google’s market share in its main search business.

I think there’s something more fundamental to all of this internet search biz than meets the eye. Advertising revenue is nothing compared to the information gathered by statistically analyzing the searches of millions and millions of consumers. Every time you search for something, you’re telling Google about some desire or curiosity you have in a product, cultural artifact, etc. They can analyze this type of data and understand a great deal about emerging markets. Basically, when people search, they tell these big companies what they are about to go out and buy. I bet the major revenue comes through not by advertising but by using search data to make extremely well-informed investment decisions. Google/Microsoft/Yahoo know exactly when and what to invest money in to, and markets range from real estate to global currency to common stocks. Knowledge is power. The YouTube purchase wasn’t about sending more people to Google search, it was about tacking on smart analysis software in to the back-end of YouTube, learning more about human behavior on-the-fly.

I think there’s something more fundamental to all of this internet search biz than meets the eye. Advertising revenue is nothing compared to the information gathered by statistically analyzing the searches of millions and millions of consumers. Every time you search for something, you’re telling Google about some desire or curiosity you have in a product, cultural artifact, etc. They can analyze this type of data and understand a great deal about emerging markets. Basically, when people search, they tell these big companies what they are about to go out and buy. I bet the major revenue comes through not by advertising but by using search data to make extremely well-informed investment decisions. Google/Microsoft/Yahoo know exactly when and what to invest money in to, and markets range from real estate to global currency to common stocks. Knowledge is power. The YouTube purchase wasn’t about sending more people to Google search, it was about tacking on smart analysis software in to the back-end of YouTube, learning more about human behavior on-the-fly.

Kermit said…The most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you, Scoble, and that’s saying a lot. Good grief, when you worked at Microsoft, did you actually have a clue as to what was going on there?

Kermit is correct here. It is obvious that you don’t read computing peer review publications, which you might have missed of what different teams from Microsoft Research are doing. For example, look at the Web & Mining Group’s research selected publications here.

It is obvious that Microsoft Research are ahead of Google in terms of knowledge about universal search engine. Universal search is basically extending text search to multimedia data search, which involve computer vision & digital signal processing and these are area that Google are novice in, but Microsoft had done work on those areas in the past. All it needs from Microsoft is to combine those disparate search systems into one, then they have a universal search engine .Also read about this:

Kermit said…The most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you, Scoble, and that’s saying a lot. Good grief, when you worked at Microsoft, did you actually have a clue as to what was going on there?

Kermit is correct here. It is obvious that you don’t read computing peer review publications, which you might have missed of what different teams from Microsoft Research are doing. For example, look at the Web & Mining Group’s research selected publications here.

It is obvious that Microsoft Research are ahead of Google in terms of knowledge about universal search engine. Universal search is basically extending text search to multimedia data search, which involve computer vision & digital signal processing and these are area that Google are novice in, but Microsoft had done work on those areas in the past. All it needs from Microsoft is to combine those disparate search systems into one, then they have a universal search engine .Also read about this:

[…] the value of buying YouTube last year for $1.65bn with the introduction of their Universal Search – Robert Scoble explains the importance of this move very well. That’s good for the consumer too. And Yahoo have continued with incremental performance […]

[…] a smart enough strategy to drive traffic from Y! Answers to other Y! Service that do make money. Scoble talks about Google and YouTube in this context: By putting YouTube results into Google’s main engine Google ensures it will have better […]